Formation of Class Expectations Student Outcomes: Social/Academic Instructional Practices Opportunities to Learn Teacher Beliefs Socioemotional Environment Instructional Environment
Formation of expectations Personality correlates of teachers Transmission of differential expectations Student perceptions Educational and social outcomes
Greater influencesLesser influences Portfolio information Gender Ethnicity Social class Diagnostic labels Attractiveness Siblings Names Language style Personality and social skills Teacher/ student background
1. Wait time less for lows 2. Give lows the answer/ ask someone else 3. Inappropriate reinforcement 4. Criticising lows for failure 5. Praise lows less for success 6. Fail to provide feedback to public response of lows 7. Pay less attention to/ interact less with lows 8. Call on lows less frequently 9. Seat lows farther from the teacher 10. Demand less from lows 11. Teachers interact more in private with lows; monitor and structure activities closely 12. Differential grading of tests 13. Less friendly interaction with lows 14. Less informative feedback to lows 15. Lows receive less eye contact and nonverbal communication 16. Less intrusive instruction of highs 17. Less use of effective instructional methods with lows
Brophy (1985) behaviours towards low expectancy students Good and Weinstein (1986) teachers provided less capable students with: not helping enough to improve students’ answers praising incorrect answers or inappropriate behaviours demanding less of them shorter and less informative feedback less intrusive instruction less use of time- consuming instructional methods less opportunity to perform publicly less opportunity to think and analyse less choice on assignments/ tasks less autonomy and more frequent monitoring more gratuitous and less contingent feedback
Development of research into teacher differential behaviour Positives and negatives related to teacher differential behaviour
Stronger effects for affective climate and instructional input A smaller effect for output A practically negligible effect for differential feedback behaviours
1. What are the specific types of differential behaviours? 2. What is the ideological legitimacy and educational desirability of each type of differential behaviour? 3. Which group of students receives an advantage from each type of teacher differential behaviour? 4. What is the teachers’ natural tendency and how would they wish to deal with particular students and different groups of students? 5. To what extent are teachers able to control their specific verbal and non-verbal behaviours?
The components of the theory clash Affective displays and actual feelings Controlling affective displays: verbal and non-verbal
Do students perceive teacher differential behaviour? Interpreting behaviours differently Perceptions of teacher interactions
Is there agreement in relation to degrees of learning support? Is there agreement in relation to degrees of emotional support?
Effects on students Classroom climate and morale Fairness and equity Social comparison process is powerful and prevalent in schools
Adams (1965) ◦ Balance between what we put in and what we get out ◦ Influenced by others Sense of justice
Student characteristics ◦ Ethnicity Teacher characteristics ◦ High bias and low bias teachers: Babad ◦ High differentiating and low differentiating teachers: Weinstein ◦ High expectation and low expectation teachers: Rubie-Davies
Gender Ethnicity Social class Diagnostic labels Physical attractiveness Language style Personality and social skills Teacher/student background Names Other siblings
Primary school girls Secondary school boys – maths, science Ability/effort Teacher interactions PE Reading and language Social behaviour
Middle class students are expected to perform at higher levels than lower social class Low social class are vulnerable to teacher expectations Some evidence teachers’ assessments for lower class are accurate but over-rate middle class But what about NZ?
Rubie-Davies Expectations vary according to whether or not a child has a label, e.g. ADHD Stinnett (2001): 144 preservice teachers ◦ ADHD, no label; Ritalin, in Special Ed ◦ Description of child; vignette
Rubie-Davies Physical attractiveness Language style Personality and social skills Teacher/student background Names Siblings
Rubie-Davies African American/ White students Hispanic/ White students Vulnerability UK But what about NZ? ◦ St George (1983) academic ◦ Stoddart (1998) social skills ◦ Rubie-Davies, Hattie, Hamilton (2006)
Rubie-Davies Rubie-Davies (2006) British Journal of Educational Psychology 21 teachers ◦ 540 students 261 NZ European 88 Maori 91 PI 94 Asian
Rubie-Davies Expectation survey ◦ 1-7 Likert scale Teacher judgement of student achievement Running records
Teacher expectations ◦ Ethnicity or social class? Societal stereotypes Lowered expectations ◦ Effect on pedagogy Lesson pace Structured environment Ability Self-fulfilling prophecy effect/ sustaining expectation effect
Prejudice (bias) is a negative attitude A stereotype is a generalisation, a belief http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/ http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/
A belief about the personal attributes of a group of people Stereotypes are sometimes over-generalised, inaccurate and resistant to new information Stereotypes are shortcuts Stereotypes are biased Problems with the use of stereotypes Prejudice: A set of negative stereotypes loaded with aggression and strong emotions carrying the idea that ‘we’ are better than ‘them’
Often based on commonly held stereotypes What is teacher bias? Objectivity appears to be difficult Experimental vs naturalistic studies? Reversed bias Reducing bias
Babad (1998) Draw-a-Person Intelligence test ◦ One-sixth of teachers objective ◦ One half mildly biased ◦ One-quarter highly biased ◦ A small proportion reverse biased
In theory In practice Personality questionnaire Classroom behaviour
Preferential affect is at the heart of the teacher expectation issue Identified high and low bias teachers
Video clips Ten-second exposure Babad’s studies in elementary and secondary schools and at university
Babad et al, 1989; 1991; Babad & Taylor, 1992 ◦ Adult judges of teacher non-verbal behaviour ◦ What young students perceived in teachers’ non- verbal behaviour ◦ Students from different grade levels ◦ In Israel and New Zealand ◦ Students made guesses about the student the teacher was talking to or about ◦ Results
Students live different lives in one classroom Student perceptions of differential treatment in the classroom
High achieversLow achievers Favoured in teacher interactions Higher expectations More opportunity and more choice Receive more frequent negative feedback More teacher-directed treatment
Teacher is the defining agent of ability not themselves, peers or parents Public incidents Importance of nonverbal cues Children relate smartness to conforming behaviour and fast completion of work Effects on children’s feelings
Ways in which students are grouped for instruction Materials and activities through which the curriculum is taught Evaluation system that teachers use to assess learning Motivational system used to engage students Responsibility that students have in directing and evaluating learning Climate of relationships within the class, with parents and with the school
Ability grouping Highly differentiated curriculum Intelligence is fixed Learning for external reward Teacher as director Teacher as academic instructor Variety of grouping Challenging learning experiences Intelligence is malleable Learning for personal growth Teacher as facilitator Teacher as socialiser
The question is not, what is it about students that mean teachers have high or low expectations for them; the question we should be asking is, what is it about teachers that means some have high or low expectations for all their students?
What do we portray in our verbal and non- verbal behaviour? Lie to Me video clip
What kinds of messages are you delivering to students? Verbally/ non-verbally? Is there any evidence of bias? What is it like for students to be in your class? What does your body language tell students?
Luke: “A lot of repetition, every day…until they can start recalling their basic number facts.” Hannah: “They need activities that are challenging so they are motivated. If I don’t make them independent as well [as the high ability students] they won’t learn to run by themselves. They’ll always need the teacher.”
Teaching statements: orienting students to the lesson, introducing and explaining new concepts, using student prior knowledge Feedback to students Open and closed questions Positive and negative behaviour management Procedural statements
High expectation teachers: a facilitative approach Low expectation teachers: a directive approach
Mixed ability groupings Worked with a variety of peers Well-defined learning goals Responsibility for learning Choices in learning experiences Intrinsically motivated Frequent feedback Answering open questions that challenged thinking Extended explanations of new concepts Positive social climate
Teacher defined activities Extrinsically motivated Worked in ability groups Little mixed ability interaction Less ownership of learning Unsure of learning direction Answering closed questions Limited explanations of concepts Plenty of procedural directions Negative social climate
Teacher journals ◦ Comments on the day – how are you feeling? Did you learn anything? Did anything surprise you? Did you enjoy the day? What will you take back to your class? Anything you are thinking about changing? ◦ Possible areas for development?